M
mommy_k
Guest
Someone I know called me a scatter plot voter. I am all over the map. I just vote for the candidate who upholds the most Catholic values. I agree that this is a difficult election.
- Status
B
bobballen_18
Guest
I think some others have already made some good points. I only want to chime in to agree with a couple of other points: A) the issue of life is very important, one of the non-negotiables for voting Catholics. So in theory, it might be ok to vote for a Democratic candidate, if he was pro life. B) It is wonderful - proper, actually - for you to desire to help the poor. But as others have said, the solution is not, for the most part, to have the government shell out money for them. That is the duty of the people. Poor people deserve aid given with love, not a check from the government. In short, don’t drink the kool-aid of the liberal social justice agenda. One can argue for the implementation of a bare minimum of governmental aids for those in poverty, under the correct circumstances, but otherwise, it is not our government’s role/responsibility to provide our citizens with everything - indeed, that is dangerous to rely on the government for many things.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Read the book Liberalism is a Sin by Fr. Salvany and you may change your mind.
The democrats now days have gone so far off the deep end I call them leftists.
The democrats now days have gone so far off the deep end I call them leftists.
C
chero23
Guest
Why are you so offensive? President FDR started all of the programs to help out and every president since then has followed stock. I guess conservatives taught it was right as well.
Your last paragraph is so offensive, that’s why minorities will never vote as a whole for a republican.
I hope you or your family or your future generations never go to the government for help, bc when they do, oh boy.
C
chero23
Guest
Now if the government was more attentive on how the money was given. People need the money. Look, people always say, keep the government out, yet something happens: locally or in the state and those leaders immediately call on the federal government.
Having said that, the social programs are a good start but it needs some tweaking.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
That book was written in the late 1800’s in Europe, in which time and place Liberalism had a specific meaning which has no relation to any current definition. But Conservatives just love that title.
I became a “liberal” when I learned that the the Bush administration had presented a false case for Saddam’s WMD’s before the Iraq War in 2003 and argued the case in a Catholic forum. This defined me as a “liberal” for conservative Catholics, even though I had always been an obedient Catholic and mostly conservative politically. After a while I accepted that to conservative Catholics, particularly (but not only), Americans, a “liberal” is anyone who thinks for themselves on any of their dogmas, so since then I have cheerfully identified as a political “liberal” in Catholic circles.
It’s not the difference of opinion that that defines a liberal, but rather the thinking for oneself. Conservatives expect self-inflicted stupidity and bullying across their whole range of issues, such as war, taxes, and climate change. They mock dissenters and have no ability for respectful debate. I have been in gatherings of Australian conservative Catholics who behave exactly the same way. We actually had a conservative Catholic in government as our Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) in 2013 and he was the worst PM the country has ever had. Apart from anything else, he was the most dishonest of them all. He managed to lose a good popular majority with his bully-boy approach, his lying, and his incompetence, and was removed after just two years. The conservatives cried “foul play” rather than recognise that Abbott had personally blown our best chance to resist Gay Marriage and the other matters of supreme moral importance by elevating the conservative agenda over the moral.
You think the US government lied about Saddam’s WMDs - you’re a liberal.
You accept that man made global warming is a scientific fact - you’re a liberal.
You believe in generous social welfare - you’re a liberal.
You think for yourself - you’re a liberal.
So, yes, I am a liberal and a Catholic.
G
GEddie
Guest
The labels mean less and less every cycle.
Like an earlier poster remarked, it is poor citizenship to eschew voting just because both candidates are less than perfect. Remember also that there are several races other than presidential, which are just as important.
There is a certain presidential candidate (who boasted about his hands while the citizens waited for answers on the issues) who is never getting my vote, but I will certainly vote for someone, even if that choice is somewhat more “liberal.”
We should also consider that while some issues do not admit of compromise (abortion), there is room for disagreement on others (environment), and debate on courses of action on others (poverty).
ICXC NIKA
Like an earlier poster remarked, it is poor citizenship to eschew voting just because both candidates are less than perfect. Remember also that there are several races other than presidential, which are just as important.
There is a certain presidential candidate (who boasted about his hands while the citizens waited for answers on the issues) who is never getting my vote, but I will certainly vote for someone, even if that choice is somewhat more “liberal.”
We should also consider that while some issues do not admit of compromise (abortion), there is room for disagreement on others (environment), and debate on courses of action on others (poverty).
ICXC NIKA
P
Peccavi
Guest
I find the Pro-Life argument shallow when it stops at birth. I am Pro-All Life - life before birth and after birth. It is my duty as a follower of Jesus to love my fellow humans, which means supporting political and economic systems that allow for his teachings - that liberate the oppressed feed the hungry educate the young, treat the sick and do all these things EQUALLY. I opposed the death sentence on the unborn and the born; I oppose social injustice and economic self interest at the expense of the poor. I BELIEVE Mary when she says God will fill the hungry with good things and the Rich he will send empty away. As a follower of Jesus I BELIEVE his words to the Rich when he tells them to take ALL they have and give it to the poor. I do not accept the protestant view of the Kingdom of God being within us but the Old Catholic view it is among us.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What that Republican said about your heritage is horrible, but don’t think all Republicans hold the same views.
Do you support and believe in the Church’s teachings regarding abortion and same-sex marriage? By the way it’s important to remember that the Church considers the right to life part of social justice. Can a Catholic have liberal views on the economy, tax, health care, yes I think you can, but you can’t on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. And this is where the problem is. There are socially conservative Democrats, but they are likely to be far and few between. The Democratic platform is in favour of same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
You need to assess whether any of the reasons you would vote for a candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, if there is an opposition candidate who supports more restrictions for abortion than the other candidate, would be considered proportional enough to vote for the candidate who is more supportive for abortion rights over the candidate who supports more restrictions.
Bishop Robert J. Carlson:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8446
Archbishop John J. Myers:
jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html
Archbishop Burke:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter
C
chero23
Guest
At the end of the day’s stick to your beliefs and defend your heritage. Having said that, be aware of situations like abortion, gay marriage, transgender restroom issues, euthanasia.
But everything else if your mindset is liberal I have no problem, even if some here call it freebies.
Your not a gold coin, so your not going to please everyone. As long as the Boss (God) is good, your good.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Others have pretty much given you the answers to the initial question.
One thing I often find Christians of a more liberal mindset confusing, and which is used by politicians, is our (Christian) value of helping the less fortunate. Christians are called to help the needy, but we aren’t called to use government to help the needy. It is a personal mandate, which works itself out in the community of faith.
Politicians have used this effectively to gain power, but if you look at the areas receiving the greatest government support you will find social devastation.
So, while we need to help the poor, nowhere does Scripture suggest we do it using the government.
Good luck.
One thing I often find Christians of a more liberal mindset confusing, and which is used by politicians, is our (Christian) value of helping the less fortunate. Christians are called to help the needy, but we aren’t called to use government to help the needy. It is a personal mandate, which works itself out in the community of faith.
Politicians have used this effectively to gain power, but if you look at the areas receiving the greatest government support you will find social devastation.
So, while we need to help the poor, nowhere does Scripture suggest we do it using the government.
Good luck.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’m not going to tell you that you can’t possibly be liberal and Catholic (the answer to that question depends entirely on how you define “liberal”).
I’ll just point out that it seems you take issue with Republicans because of what a couple have said, and yet you take Democrats at their word when it comes to the good that they do.
Could Republicans do more for pro-life causes? Sure. Do some trot out pro-life rhetoric just to gain votes? Probably. But there have been gains in pro-life legislation. And they have all come from the Republican side.
You could just as easily say similar things about the Democrats. Have they really helped the poor? Why is the income gap growing? Why is there still unemployment? Why are people still homeless? Why do we believe that a bunch of millionaire politicians want to actually help the poor rather than simply procure their votes?
The fact is, neither political party is a “Catholic” party. And there is room for cynicism on either side of the aisle. “Liberal Catholics” can assume that the Republicans are just giving lip service to pro-life causes and “Conservative Catholics” can assume that the Democrats are just giving lip service to poverty and the environment.
I want to help the poor, too. I’m not convinced that liberal policies are always and everywhere the better option in that regard. That’s the popular assumption, but I think it’s a big assumption. For example, the news reports tend to talk as though raising minimum wage is a no-brainer solution for helping people rise out of poverty. And yet, what of the low-skilled workers who lose their job to automation once the entry level wage is too high? Then they are unemployed and in a worse financial situation. Will that happen to everyone? No. But will it happen to some? Certainly. We need to carefully weight the pros and cons rather than make decisions based on a rudimentary emotional understanding of the issue.
The bottom line is that the reality is often more complicated than sound bites and bumper sticker slogans. And yet, by-and-large, our political discourse is reduced to tweet-size commentary.
We do need better politicians all around, I think.
I do still believe that there are some good ones left, though.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Exactly!
Wherever we read about helping the less fortunate in Sacred Scripture, it is always in terms of almsgiving - that is, private and voluntary charity.
Government welfare programmes are often stupendously inefficient, corrupt (at least in my country), and do little to address the root causes of poverty.
For example, a policy in my country provides a small allowance (approximately $25 at current exchange rates) to the mentally ill, but does nothing to facilitate their access to care, their ability to obtain the most effective medications, or their rehabilitation. The result is simply a chronic mentally ill person who gets $25 per month - most of which goes on travelling to and fro to the nearest Government hospital to obtain less-than-optimal medications.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
This is an excellent example of why “common sense” isn’t a great guide on “social justice” issues. Common sense tells us that a higher minimum wage means better standards of living for employees. But science (in this case, economics) tells us that a higher minimum wage means less employers willing to pay such a wage, greater exporting of jobs to people willing to work for less (I live in one such country!
), and higher unemployment. Sometimes the obvious solution isn’t the right one.The fact of the matter is that liberal and socialist governments have been fighting a “war on poverty” for decades, and they’re not doing too well anywhere. We need to ask ourselves why that is.
E
estesbob
Guest
And keep in my mind we can not fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for you.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
In a true democracy we should be able to vote issue by issue, and not one lunatic candidate versus another. But this type of democracy would probably put out national security at great risk because the average person does not have the full knowledge of the ramifications of most issues, and would simply vote for whatever issue is in their own best interest, and so true fairness and justice would also be undermined. Again, I place my faith in God and pray that whoever wins the elections will best guide our nation and international relations. In other words, I place my faith in God and not in democracy per se.
E
estesbob
Guest
Which is worse-disrespecting your heritage or actively supporting the killing of 100s of thousands of Hispanics a year?
G
GEddie
Guest
We (USA) are not and have never been a true democracy, as the founders distrusted that. They knew that mob rule leads to injustice; look what happened to Socrates under a direct democracy.
That is why checks and balances are so critical.
ICXC NIKA
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Here’s a nice passage from Germain Grisez on the voting issue:
"Many citizens regard voting as a privilege which, morally speaking, they are entirely free to exercise or not, just as they please. But Vatican II, having taught that it is in accord with human nature that all citizens should be able to participate freely and actively in shaping political structures and choosing leaders, draws the conclusion: “Therefore, all citizens are to bear in mind that it is both their right and duty to use their free vote to promote the common good” (GS 75).
Perhaps because major, general, national elections receive great attention from the media, some people vote in them but omit voting in other elections and/or in primaries. Similarly, some people vote for candidates for office but omit voting on the issues which have been placed on the ballot. As a rule, however, an election’s outcome is likely to affect many people in significant ways, so the duty to vote is not limited to elections which draw more attention and seem more important.
Totalitarian regimes sometimes conduct elections for mere show, and even in democratic societies an election occasionally offers no option which makes any detectable difference to the common good. In such cases, there is no obligation to vote and there may even be an obligation to refuse to do so."
(bold added by me)
twotlj.org/G-2-11-C.html
Whether this applies to the situation in America is, of course, debatable.
E
estesbob
Guest
When fighting evil one must often make tough decisions-decisions like voting for a less than perfect candidate to keep a Candidate who supports even more evil from taking office. As Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Status